Situational variables of Milgrams experiment

One variable of Milgrams experiment was location. When Milgrams moved the experiment to a run-down office block, obedience dropped to 47.5% This may be because the experiment didn’t seeem as legitimate or important as it did when it was at a prestigious university.

Another variable is proximity of the learner. When Milgrams moved the learner into the same room as the teacher at a distance of 1.5 feet, obedience dropped to 40%. When the teacher was required to force the learners hand down onto the shock plate, obedience dropped to 30%. This may have been because they could actually see the harm they were causing . In the original study, they were in a separate room and had a physical barrier between them and the learner so could separate themselves from the harm they were causing.

Another variable is proximity of the experimenter When the experimenter gave the instructions over the phone, obedience dropped to 20.5% and in some cases the ppt pretended to give the shock but didn’t actually. This is be se ppts may ave felt less pressure from the authority figure.

Another variable is uniform. When the role of the experimenter was taken over by someone wearing normal everyday clothes rather than the lab coat worn in the original study, obedience dropped to 20%. Therefore, wearing a uniform increases obedience levels. This may be because wearing a uniform makes the authority figure seem more legitimate since it is a symbol of their authority.

Supporting this, Bickman found that when ordering people on a New York street to pick up litter, they were more likely to oh when the request had come from someone in a security guards uniform rather than a civilians outfit.

AO3

A strength of Milgrams variations is that there was a high degree of control over variables. For example, he systematically altered one variable at a time to see what effect it had on obedience levels. All other procedures and variables were kept the same. This is a strength since it increases the internal validity of the study and we can be confident he drawing conclusions about the effects of variables like proximity on obedience levels. Furthermore, this high control improves replicability.

One strength is that there is research support for the influence of situational variables. In Bickmans field study, it was found that people were twice as likely to obey an order from someone in a security guards uniform rather than a general civilian. This supports Milgrams conclusion that a uniform conveys authority and is a situational factor in obedience. Furthermore Bickmans study is high in ecological validity due to being conducted on the streets of New York, meaning the findings about situational variables can be generalised to everyday society, offering further support for Milgrams situational variables.

One weakness is the research may lack internal validity. For example, ppts may have worked out that the procedure was fake and responded to demand characteristics and this was said to be more likely in Milgrams variations eg when the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public. This is a weakness because it is unclear wether the results are due to genuine obedience in the situational variables or if they are due to ppts acting according to what they thought the researcher was looking for.

Another strength is that the research has cross cultural replications. For example, similar studies found that Spanish and Dutch ppts had an obedience rate of 90% and when the person giving orders wasn’t present, obedience significantly dropped, replicating Milgrams initial findings. This is a strength since it suggests that Milgrams findings are high in population validity since they can be applied across cultures.

However, Bond and Smith explain how most research has been carried out in Western cultures so it is still to early to conclude that situational variables like proximity, location and uniform apply across all cultures universally.